REMAKES??? AGAIN? I MEAN, AGAIN, AGAIN?!!

Screenwriter William Goldman's Golden Rule #1 (regarding Hollywood Studio Execs):

"Nobody Knows Anything."

As one long-time studio exec told Goldman: "If you take all the films I made and switch them with all the films I turned down because I thought they wouldn't sell, I'd have come out about the same money-wise."
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmbEwSdJg6c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXRd8JOyYlM&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ4BMZhAVmU

That's a typical Hollywood exec. He hits it straight on the head of the nail. Haha. I have met some execs exactly like that.
 
Part of the reason we, the moviegoing public, only get remakes is because, and I learned this on this forum, the companies are going with what worked before. The idea doesn't have to be fresh, just put the flavor of the week actor/actress in the lead roles and send it back out. How many "Freaky Friday" remakes have there been? The most successful might have been Big, but there you go. Then there was the Lindsay Lohan version, and the Zac whats-his-name version came out last year, 13 going on 30 the year before.

But the fact is there is very little originality happening. That's why when something hits, you can believe that there will be a string of films trying to harness the same fire. And that's why there is a Thunder Cats film coming.

What has to happen is that the viewing audience has to raise its expectations and demand they be met. That is done with the money they have to spend on a film. Most people, myself included, cannot figure out how to keep an interesting film in the theater outside going to see it the first day it comes out. Pan's Labrynth was in the theater for maybe 2 weeks. That's it. Some blockbuster, busted the block and everyone went to see the big film. So it didn't matter that Pan's Labrynth was being called a great movie.

Its not necessarily about giving the people what they want. If that were so, they wouldn't take good stories and change the endings or try to make the story 'better'.

You aren't saying the scripts are crap. Okay. I will. Alot of the stuff being remade or the superhero stuff is B.S. Hence, the Thunder Cats movie and the Smurfs movie. I mean really, do we need a smurf movie? The ones making movies know that the little kiddies who have no idea what a smurf is, will fall all over it. So, the answer is that this stuff keeps being made because it sells. It makes money. Who cares if it is drivel? Obviously it doesn't matter because it keeps selling.

And about Chinatown

Chinatown is a film that almost didn't get made because of the subject matter, but ended up being watered down from what they originally wanted. Someone didn't think audiences would be able to handle it. Wikipedia used to have an extensive explaination of all 3 films, Chinatown, The Two Jakes and a third called Cloverleaf, but things just didn't go right for Polanski.

-- spinner :cool:
 
Nobody expects the masses to love art-house or Indie thrillers, most don't have the time for anything new or have ever been in the circumstance of being introduced to anything but what they know, and what with the million distractions i wouldn't hold your breath.

Wholly untrue. And you better hope it's untrue.

People go see what is available, but people are also begining to look for the art house stuff. If that weren't true, there would have been no place for Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction. No place for a film like Pi or Magnolia and certainly no place for David Lynch.


-- spinner :cool:
 
Good, sound made a break through, some good movies were made, but that's not the point of my thread lol. But it doesn't matter.

That experiment proves my point. And Roc even helped further prove my point.

And I think Independant movies are much more noticed since the 90's. Usual suspects,Reservoir dogs, clerks, man I can talk forever.

But I think remakes can be good, but they fuck them up! And I hope scream 4 makes fun of it harcore!

But I love movies, the past, present and to be. They will change, but they will never never die. As long as man is on earth, films will remain. I just hope someday things will change for this decade. We will eventually run out of remakes, hopefully. They are remaking Straw dogs! Gus van sant ruined Psycho. Hope they dont ruin this.

Thanks everyone for posting on my threads!
 
The entertainment business is exactly that - a business. The corporations that make and distribute films must answer to investors who demand a return on their investment. Every executive that green lights a project puts his entire career on the line. That means that they will go with a safe investment for the shareholders of their parent company and so protect their career. Let's face it, $100 million or more is a lot of money to risk. And I disagree with the statement that 95% of people are stupid. They spend their entertainment dollars in the same businesslike fashion; they want a return on their investment, so they will also go with the tried and true, especially in hard economic times.

The problem also lies with the indie filmmakers themselves. With the increasing bandwidth of the internet and the integration of home entertainment systems with computers & the 'net - and companies like NetFlicks and site like YouTube - comes opportunities for indie projects. But the technical quality of the projects is always going to be compared to major Hollywood films and network TV shows. However, there is a culture of "good enough" in the indie world that will not cut it with the average person who does not have the time nor inclination to find the diamond in the cesspool.
 
Wholly untrue. And you better hope it's untrue.

People go see what is available, but people are also begining to look for the art house stuff. If that weren't true, there would have been no place for Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction. No place for a film like Pi or Magnolia and certainly no place for David Lynch.

See, I'm still kinda swinging towards "availability" isn't worth jack, if the masses don't know it, if the media or a big name haven't jumped on it, they won't spend their wages to see it in a movie theater. We are now decades down the line from both directors, it was the UK who initially gave Tarantino's movies the time of day to watch them, if they hadn't created the buzz of treating it as real feature and not some churned out B-side, there would be no Tarantino. The names he had helped too. True Romance was just as good as Pulp Fiction, directed by Tony Scott -who wasn't doing half bad at the time but it's still T's work and you can see that from the get-go. Two years prior it premiered in the US and wasn't given the time of day, only when Tarantino got some acclaim did it become a 'Cult Classic', yet half the people i ask still don't have a damn clue what it is.

It's just as much about timing as it is making a great movie. "Slumdog" had Danny Boyle who was yet to really cane the fests, Trainspotting was a bit here and there, the media where certainly not going to parade it as a crown jewel that's for sure. Yet Slumdog was an all out shock, no big names, the story isn't that unique but it's sure shot well, great soundtrack. It was advertised more than I've ever seen anything advertised in my life, amazing marketing.

What is different now, is Indies are separate, there is a clear divide, they look like indies, they are advertised like indies, and i love that.

Example.

"Let The Right One In" an outstanding piece of cinema was shown in theaters across the world, now everybody didn't see it, there was a distinct core that did, it got buzz from fests so the award scouts sure as hell went to see it, and it raked in a lot of wins. So here we are 2 years from it's release, and we have a remake ladies and gentlemen, let's make it what everybody will enjoy. There will be a hands full worth of indies that will make it through, but they'll fall under the carpet unless they have a sterling director that is groundbreaking, or an entire factory of marketing minions at their disposal.

Cinemas have got to value their audiences and not just drool over the quick buck, but none of them are going to take the chance of lowering their prices of Indies especially, incase the movies bomb and they go out of business. It has to happen if we want to see cinemas still standing, it'll be a slow process, but lower the prices and you'll see the audiences checking movies they maybe didn't give a damn about.

NOTE: I won't speak on the comment made about the mass public being "Stupid", that's a little naive slugger. Plus the percentages you're giving us are a constructed purely of your own being, there's no truth to any ratio you've given to us.
 
Oh, okay then.

"Okay, no doubt the 2000's have been all about Remakes, Sequels, Re boots and Superheros...."

That's what I read. I thought you meant that.

Alright.

I knew I liked you, ROC.

Wall-E
Ratatouille
Eternal Sunshine
Little Miss Sunshine
Death Proof
Inglorious Basterds
Avatar
40 Year-Old Virgin
Knocked Up
Old School
Million Dollar Baby
Ray
The Soloist
Brick
Hero

I could do this all day. Hollywood is alive and kicking, and making PLENTY of terrific original movies. And some of those remakes and re-boots are pretty fucking awesome.

J.J. Abram's "Star TreK" very existence justifies every crappy remake, IMO.
 
I’m interested in seeing if/how Tarantino remakes Russ Myers’ Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

Abomination or Match made in movie heaven?

-Thanks-
 
Last edited:
See, I'm still kinda swinging towards "availability" isn't worth jack, if the masses don't know it, if the media or a big name haven't jumped on it, they won't spend their wages to see it in a movie theater.

....and I would agree with you, were it 15 years ago. Moviegoers are alot more savvy than they used to be. The fact that you for the most part will not see a big film like Iron Man at a film festival, film fests are popping up all over the U.S. If you have ever been to a film festival, you know what you are going to get. So you look for that gem that you can tell your friends about. So, yes, the 'availability' argument is worth jack.

True Romance came out in '93. Viewers were just emerging from the decade that gave us Ghostbusters. C'mon! You think a Porky's audience is going to jump up and run to see True Romance? They're not. Audiences have to be given a chance to get used to and then look for something different. People had to hear about Tarantino and Reservoir Dogs. Then they looked for True Romance. Trainspotting was here and there? Not where I live it wasn't. That film was pretty big where I was, which was a college town. Trainspotting moved by word of mouth and is now a cult classic like A Clockwork Orange is.

Part of the problem with Let The Right One In is the fact that it had subtitles. People, by and large, still don't want to read those. But many more people than in 1993 will brave a foreign film nowadays. A film festival word of mouth will move a film pretty darn fast. That's how I heard about Let The Right One In.

It will take a little longer maybe before we see small films pour money into the pockets of AMC or GKC cinemas. But its changing over slowly. How many explosions do you really see nowadays? The action thriller is much more like The Bourne Identity than a 80's Schwartzenegger film. Viewers are smarter and jaded. If they hate it, its worse because of word of mouth. You have to serve up smarter films now.

And the mass public is not stupid. They just have yet to figure out the value in a small film, but they are learning. Look at Garden State. Yes there were names, but no explosions, no CGI and nobody yelling "Freedom!"

-- spinner :cool:
 
I knew I liked you, ROC.

I was beginning to worry.

You forgot:

Up
No country for old men
That one movie about the oil man - haha I forgot the name. !!! Daniel Day Louis - I'm too lazy to google it.
Ice Age franchise
The Lovely Bones
How to Train your Dragon
The assassination of Jesse James (don't know if it's a remake)
Benjamin Button
Fight Club
Sixth Sense (in the 00s?)
The Village
Signs (was this in the 00s?)

I could go on, too...

But yeah - it's alive and kicking.
 
Last edited:
I’m interested in seeing if/how Tarantino remakes Russ Myers’ Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

Abomination or Match made in movie heaven?

-Thanks-


What?......(sigh) :rolleyes:

Okay, on second thought, Tarantino at least LOVES the films he pays hommage to, he has a good track record, plus........Oh, hell. Let me google this so I know what's going on :hmm:


-- spinner :cool:
 
Yeah and Slum Dog Millionaire and Hurt Locker were indies as well, right?

How many indies won oscars in the 90s?

I think "indie" the way we talk of indie, the answer is one:


OSCAR WINNERS 90'S

90: Dances With Wolves
91: Silence of the Lambs
92: Unforgiven
93: Schindler's List
94: Forest Gump
95: Braveheart
96: The English Patient
97: Titanic
98: Shakespeare In Love
99: American Beauty

Don't get me started on the year Forrest Gump won....

-- spinner :cool:
 
Haha. What happened that year? I loved Forrest Gump. Especially the sound.

Randy Thom - you rock. If hope you find this thread by googling your name.

Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom Randy Thom

One of the best sound designers of our time.
 
Okay, I think we've strayed a bit. No one (I don't think) is saying good movies aren't made or that independent movies aren't successful. As indies go, I personally will watch anything by:

The Coen Brothers
Paul Thomas Anderson
Steven Soderbergh
Quentin Tarantino
David Lynch
Gus Van Sant
(and though I'm not particularly a fan, I do acknowledge the artist that is Wes Anderson)

Among studio directors:

Ridley Scott
Michael Mann
James Cameron
M Night Shyamalan
Steven Spielberg
Martin Scorsese
Clint Eastwood
David Fincher
Christopher Nolan
(and though I'm not particularly a fan, I do acknowledge the artist that is Tim Burton)

There are others, of course. These guys all consistently make good movies, but they are all A-list names who can pretty much do whatever they want because their names will sell the production. Is it enough to have a handful of directors who are (sometimes) allowed to do original stuff? Maybe the answer is yes, in which case I guess we'll have to be content with the status quo.
 
Last edited:
Randy is the freakin' BOMB! A true evangelist when it comes to the importance of sound for picture. He was (and still is) of great assistance to me when I got started with audio post.

I watched "Contact" again last night (Randy and Robert Zemeckis have done quite a few films together). Sonically the opening sequence is absolutely brilliant.

Just a few more of the films on which Randy has worked:

How to Train Your Dragon
A Christmas Carol
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
Coraline
Bolt
Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa
Horton Hears a Who!
Bee Movie
Enchanted
The Simpsons Movie
Ratatouille
Monster House
Ice Age: The Meltdown
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
War of the Worlds
The Incredibles
The Polar Express
Shrek 2
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Avalon
Cast Away
Bicentennial Man
The Iron Giant
Starship Troopers
Jumanji
Miracle on 34th Street
Forrest Gump
Wild at Heart
Colors
Spaceballs
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
The Right Stuff
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi
Koyaanisqatsi
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back
Apocalypse Now


He's obviously a go-to guy for animation films.

ROC - are you a member of the Sound_Article_List and/or Sound_Design groups on Yahoo!?
 
No - I don't have a yahoo account. What do I need to do to become a member?

Also, the last Yahoo group I saw which was a production sound group/forum there were all these random adds for p*rn and crap like that amongst the posts. Doesn't seem too savory of a place.
 
Back
Top